tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post18749975988782061..comments2014-05-09T13:25:02.936-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Global Warming Denial and God BeliefMartinnoreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53280168932170863832010-08-14T23:20:59.499-05:002010-08-14T23:20:59.499-05:00I don&#39;t &quot;believe&quot; in global warming,...I don&#39;t &quot;believe&quot; in global warming, I accept global warming as scientific fact. As for the entire idea of god and religion, it is purported to be true because it is true. I have never read a science book that said for example &quot;since e=c, and Gilfrock squared equals Goobin and 2+4 is six, that proves god exists. <br />It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Scientific theories have to stand up to questioning and doubt. Also, I&#39;ve never read a science book that said &quot;and if you don&#39;t accept this book as truth, you&#39;ll go to hell.&quot;Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11979231629871932987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20015612058077713042010-03-05T08:59:15.605-06:002010-03-05T08:59:15.605-06:00@magx - I&#39;m not really sure what you are getti...@magx - I&#39;m not really sure what you are getting at.. I don&#39;t see how anything I posted has anything to do with what you have stated. <br /><br />@March Hare stated perfectly the issue with &#39;Global Warming&#39; as opposed to climate change. All I am saying is that with unreviewed science that was exposed to be heavily manipulated by lying scientists serving as the core foundation of the prophecy, how can we not rethink what we&#39;ve heard. The science behind Global Warming theory is junk science - it&#39;s no more than an argument on religion as previously quoted.<br /><br />Perhaps you can explain to me how bad science and manipulated equations in modeling software, with data sets manufactured to create an outcome with known flaws causes you to believe in this theory?rockstarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119795098737757626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75736244832684214062010-03-05T03:38:45.833-06:002010-03-05T03:38:45.833-06:00@magx01 et al.
Few sensible people deny the clima...@magx01 et al.<br /><br />Few sensible people deny the climate is changing.<br />Fewer deny that human activity can cause global changes, or that they can be reversed by concerted action (the hole in the ozone layer being a perfect example).<br /><br />The difference here is that climate science has always been... not intuitive. The way science works is that when someone suggests something not obvious then the burden is on them to show that it is true using evidence. That evidence is then scrutinised by others and declared valid or not. This hasn&#39;t happened here and no amount of screams of peer review (which didn&#39;t happen to any standard) will make it so.<br /><br />As the UK&#39;s Science Committee questioned Professor Jones of the UEA quite a lot came out:<br /><br />The low spot for Jones came when he was asked why he had replied to one interlocutor that <b>he wasn&#39;t going to make his data available, because he only wanted to find something wrong with it.</b> But wasn&#39;t that the way science worked?<br /><br />&quot;I have obviously written some very awful emails,&quot; he replied glumly.<br /><br />&quot;But you wouldn&#39;t let him have the data,&quot; said Stringer.<br /><br />&quot;<b>We had a lot of work and resources tied up in it</b>,&quot; said Jones, digging himself in a little deeper.<br /><br />Next to him, holding a metaphorical hand, was Professor Edward Acton, his vice-chancellor, who interrupted at intervals to tell the committee what a splendid fellow Jones was and how his unit was doing magnificent work warning the world.<br /><br />Which made it all the more astonishing that it turns out that the unit has only three full-time members. Given the importance they claim, it&#39;s as if the British army consisted of half a dozen men and an officer.<br /><br />Previously Nigel Lawson had said, &quot;Proper scientists, scientists with integrity, wish to reveal their data and all their methods. They do not require freedom of information requests!&quot;March Harehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10052513749269502682010-03-04T12:28:46.936-06:002010-03-04T12:28:46.936-06:00Hey, Rockstar, can you next fill us in on how we&#...Hey, Rockstar, can you next fill us in on how we&#39;ve been misled regarding evolution, and how creationism is true?<br /><br />Then perhaps you could get into the whole 9/11 thing, maybe tell us how the moon landing was faked, etc.<br /><br />I&#39;m a sponge, you&#39;re the water. Fill me up baby.magx01http://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29492214539485685882010-03-03T14:12:34.242-06:002010-03-03T14:12:34.242-06:00Sorry ladies and gents, one last post for those wh...Sorry ladies and gents, one last post for those who may have been under a rock. Read this http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/44892-climate-boss-quits-over-faked-stats#close<br /><br />&quot;The issue is of fundamental concern as the CRU is, or rather, was, the world&#39;s foremost repository of climate data on which practically all research into global warming is based. Now the original data has been deliberately deleted, there&#39;s no way to check the scientists&#39; claims against the facts, meaning that the rest of the world will simply have to take the anthropogenic global warming industry&#39;s word for it, reducing what should be a scientific debate to the level of a religious belief.&quot;rockstarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119795098737757626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8230591588408625752010-03-03T14:05:20.887-06:002010-03-03T14:05:20.887-06:00OH I should have added as well: First - Many of y...OH I should have added as well: First - Many of you posting need to read a LOT more / from varying outlets. Second, to those waxing on about CO2 and how much we blow in - need to understand how LITTLE we blow in comparatively and consider the position that CO2 increases TRAIL warming. Also, to those supposing that we have so much to do with it - you are basing your judgments on manipulated science. I&#39;m not saying there&#39;s no impact ABSOLUTELY, but just like Atheism I Can say there has been no burden of proof met - and to those who think scientists are profiting from the superhype of gw, look up how many new jobs have been created, and grants given to those who re-purpose a previously denied study to include &#39;climate data&#39; and are then given grants.rockstarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119795098737757626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49618667994096197062010-03-03T14:00:10.387-06:002010-03-03T14:00:10.387-06:00I would be / am shocked to see such a large number...I would be / am shocked to see such a large number of atheists would actually believe that Global Warming has presented enough evidence, especially in light of the modelling fiasco / source code / deliberate fraud. I&#39;m shocked as well because Global Warming is the New Religion... All the same kinds of FUD.rockstarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119795098737757626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51984118805807592582010-02-12T06:41:33.446-06:002010-02-12T06:41:33.446-06:00@ Luis
Um actually since Rush is a big opponent a...@ Luis<br /><br />Um actually since Rush is a big opponent and skeptic/denialist of ecology I&#39;d say your take is exaggerated but almost right. He&#39;s said things in the past that argue for a wanton rape of the land, just go ahead and throw your garbage out the car window thing. So yeah, he does kind of deny the poisoned waters and polluted cities...kind ofInghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49794970658460110182010-02-12T00:22:40.951-06:002010-02-12T00:22:40.951-06:00@ Luis:
It&#39;s amazing how a grown adult in the...@ Luis:<br /><br />It&#39;s amazing how a grown adult in the public eye can get away with making such ridiculous claims and not have his **** called out for what it is: ****!<br /><br />I mean honestly, how willfully ingorant can one get? His little brain didn&#39;t pluck the back of his shirt and whisper into his ear &quot;uh, sir.....pollution?&#39;&#39;<br /><br />*sigh*magx01http://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88747818016057842582010-02-11T06:12:28.493-06:002010-02-11T06:12:28.493-06:00&quot;I simply cannot accept the fact that we woul...&quot;I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment...&quot;<br /><br />What a dumb-arse. Apparently humans never destroyed forests, never polluted rivers, never depleted the ozone layer, never drove a species to extinction, never drained a marsh, never allowed petroleum to spill into the Gulf, never built cities where the air is so dirty that thousands of people die every year from inhalation of smog.Luishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54729588081993616102010-02-10T00:09:42.282-06:002010-02-10T00:09:42.282-06:00Oh and Neutron, you can&#39;t claim &quot;it&#39;s...Oh and Neutron, you can&#39;t claim &quot;it&#39;s not scientific&quot; and THEN claim to bring in facts. This translate to &quot;I don&#39;t want to be held accountable to the facts but I still want to use them&quot;. I&#39;m just go ahead and ignore you know, let me know when you&#39;re willing to keep the net up for your serve.Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32624790234879833902010-02-10T00:06:31.468-06:002010-02-10T00:06:31.468-06:00&quot;And, once again, a liberal just can&#39;t ge...&quot;And, once again, a liberal just can&#39;t get through even a short response without name-calling. There&#39;s such a great propensity toward the assumption that your own opinion is the only one that can possibly be sensible, and that anyone who disagrees with you is simply deserving of scorn, that you just can&#39;t help yourself.&quot;<br /><br />Seriously, learn a new tune. You don&#39;t even KNOW my political preference.Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52111662922459444732010-02-09T02:42:08.988-06:002010-02-09T02:42:08.988-06:00Wow. Must be the first pre-emptive self-Godwin I s...Wow. Must be the first pre-emptive self-Godwin I see.<br /><br />But you are right, of course, except for the mathematical part. You see, what made the Nazis despicable was precisely that they classified entire human populations into those of greater and and those of lesser merit, and thought that the latter should perish while the former should be animated to reproduce at higher rates. Sound familiar? Ah no, you will probably not make the connection, seeing as how conservative Americans are probably convinced by this point that the real problem with the Nazis was their invention of Obamacare or something.<br /><br />This is getting increasingly off-topic as well as ethically repugnant. I&#39;m out.Mintmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55232522622636679852010-02-08T19:25:32.594-06:002010-02-08T19:25:32.594-06:00@Neutron, people rarely wish to hear that the effe...@Neutron, people rarely wish to hear that the effects of AGW may be beneficial to certain regions and populations.<br /><br />Canadians should be more open to it than most, it will open up a lot of very productive arable land for much longer growing periods.<br /><br />Most regions that face imminent danger are regions of low wealth and high population growth. Perhaps the opening up of northern Europe and North America for larger populations will be a good thing. I&#39;d rather have more Europeans then Asians or Africans based on the relative merits of their current societies. And yes, I am more than aware of the dangers of this type of thinking and the risks that some people may decide that 2+2=5 and I&#39;m Hitler or a racist, but tough. If an African nation became open, free and democratic I&#39;d be all for their population to increase at the expense of other nations, even western ones that were becoming backwards, insular and anything but free.March Harehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8638222638917815302010-02-08T19:03:47.082-06:002010-02-08T19:03:47.082-06:00@Mintman: We&#39;re getting nowhere. You keep pu...@Mintman: We&#39;re getting nowhere. You keep putting words in my mouth which either distort what I&#39;ve said or which are diametrically opposite to what I&#39;ve said, and then argue against them.<br /><br />&quot;AGW is accepted by leftists, leftists are morons, therefore AGW is probably bunk&quot; (paraphrased)<br /><br />Paraphrased, in fact, to the point where it doesn&#39;t represent my viewpoint at all. I&#39;ve never said leftists are morons; I don&#39;t, in fact, believe any such thing. They have sincerely-held beliefs that are, in my opinion, often incorrect; that doesn&#39;t make them morons, nor would I ever call them such.<br /><br />And I don&#39;t conclude from that that &quot;AGW is probably bunk&quot;. I conclude from the fact that one end of the political spectrum has seized hold of AGW so fervently that it is cause for suspicion.<br /><br />&quot;... if you think that the assembled human expertise on climate is untrustworthy because of four completely unproblematic phrases artfully taken out of context, ...&quot;<br /><br />I&#39;ve already said that I have no scientific opinion on AGW because I have not done the research. I&#39;ve not done the research because the topic does not particularly interest me. I&#39;ve no idea, for example, what four phrases you&#39;re talking about here. I&#39;ll be sure to investigate, however, should I ever get interested enough to do the research.<br /><br />&quot;... you specifically said that you considered liberals to be always wrong, ...&quot;<br /><br />In point of fact, what I specifically said was &quot;right is not always right&quot;.<br /><br />The really odd thing about this discussion is that the point I was making in my original post was not about AGW at all, but rather about whether a slightly-warmer Earth would necessarily be a bad thing, AGW or no. But I wind up instead spending the time correcting gross distortions of what I say on the AGW issue, a topic for which I have no scientific opinion to attack or defend, and so stated up front.<br /><br />I&#39;m all done doing that. Distort away in your next post all you wish.Neutronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36084461730254595122010-02-08T16:48:13.229-06:002010-02-08T16:48:13.229-06:00Neutron:
There&#39;s such a great propensity towa...Neutron:<br /><br /><i>There&#39;s such a great propensity toward the assumption that your own opinion is the only one that can possibly be sensible, and that anyone who disagrees with you is simply deserving of scorn, that you just can&#39;t help yourself.</i><br /><br />Well, once you understand that your objections to the scientific consensus on AGW are about as reasonable as similar objections to the scientific consensus on the world being round just because you have not traveled to space yourself to look at it from above, you will probably also understand why people who know it better may be ticked off. It is a bit like trying to remain patient with a flat earther who petulantly insists that the earth must be flat because I&#39;m a goddam librul (not that I necessarily am; the word is used in my country for what would probably be called libertarians in yours).<br /><br /><i>...I fail to see that my behavior in any of the posts on this thread has been unpleasant. I&#39;ve clearly stated my biases and stated my position in calm tones.</i><br /><br />It would probably have helped if you had made a sensible contribution to start with, such as &quot;AGW does not happen, here is why&quot;, or &quot;AGW is no big deal, here is why&quot;, but no, you started it with &quot;AGW is accepted by leftists, leftists are morons, therefore AGW is probably bunk&quot; (paraphrased). But as long as you consider the latter to be part of a discussion instead of trolling, you will antagonize people.<br /><br /><i>And the truly *fascinating* thing about your reply, in particular, is that you don&#39;t even state that my opinion is wrong, much less attempt to refute it. The only point of your entire post was the name-calling bit.</i><br /><br />Well, I understand Ing. Consider how much time I have already wasted on troll-feeding here. There comes a point where you do not want to invest any more because it is hopeless. I could ask you again to read the IPCC reports, in particular the easy to digest handouts for policy leaders, but if you think that the assembled human expertise on climate is untrustworthy because of four completely unproblematic phrases artfully taken out of context, then I can really not help you. What would I do with somebody who rejects evolution because all evidence in favor of it must be the work of Satan? Same thing, really.<br /><br /><i>&quot;Sorry, you are the crazy one here, not me.&quot; Ah, good. I fretted that there&#39;d be a liberal post that disagreed with me *without* name-calling.</i><br /><br />The sky is blue. Sheep go baa. Your political compass as evident in your posts here is craziness. Just saying what is what, no name calling involved.<br /><br /><i>I *have* confessed to a non-specific suspicion on a topic which one side of the political spectrum adopts so immediately, wholeheartedly, and fervently. That, I believe, is a simple matter of prudence.</i><br /><br />See above. And no, if that would be a general principle accepted by yourself, then you would show the same suspicion against every talking point of your spectrum, but you specifically said that you considered liberals to be always wrong, and therefore only their positions suspect. But anyway, this is simply no reasonable way to decide truth or untruth, it cannot even enter as a point of evidence. It&#39;s crazy.Mintmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39351734500606619502010-02-08T14:09:52.715-06:002010-02-08T14:09:52.715-06:00Doing a spot of fishing, Don?
;)Doing a spot of fishing, Don?<br /><br />;)Darren Cubitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11843647976259798386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30086490879356787472010-02-08T13:49:13.356-06:002010-02-08T13:49:13.356-06:00@Ing: You know when you get your science from Lim...@Ing: You know when you get your science from Limbaugh it&#39;s not going to be accurate.&quot;<br /><br />That&#39;s undoubtedly true. Are you claiming that my facts on long-term global temperature changes are wrong? They come from ice-core data.Neutronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17605101447022839372010-02-08T13:41:23.506-06:002010-02-08T13:41:23.506-06:00@Mintman: Have you considered that leftists might...@Mintman: Have you considered that leftists might not be blaming humans for something because they are masochist, but because humans are actually to blame for it?&quot;<br /><br />Yes. That&#39;s precisely why I have repeatedly stated that my opinion on this issue is not fully-formed and that the impressions I stated were &quot;unscientific&quot;.<br /><br />&quot;Sorry, you are the crazy one here, not me.&quot; Ah, good. I fretted that there&#39;d be a liberal post that disagreed with me *without* name-calling.<br /><br />&quot;If your behaviour here is any indication, so-called invectives thrown at you are probably retaliation in kind.&quot;<br /><br />Indeed? I have made no personal attacks, nor have I disrespected anyone&#39;s opinion. So much for &quot;retaliation in kind&quot;. I *have* confessed to a non-specific suspicion on a topic which one side of the political spectrum adopts so immediately, wholeheartedly, and fervently. That, I believe, is a simple matter of prudence.<br /><br />I fail to see that my behavior in any of the posts on this thread has been unpleasant. I&#39;ve clearly stated my biases and stated my position in calm tones.<br /><br />&quot;I am too lazy to research myself, so I will just assume that what people I do not like are saying is wrong.&quot;<br /><br />Not *wrong*, but suspect. If I cared more about the topic, I&#39;d research it. And you have the logic turned around; I don&#39;t dislike someone <i>a priori</i> and therefore assume that what they say is wrong; it&#39;s rather the other way around. My general opinion, from previous experience, is that they&#39;re wrong, which is the cause of my dislike. That bias informs my initial reaction to their future assertions.Neutronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15655404211667789652010-02-08T11:47:04.427-06:002010-02-08T11:47:04.427-06:00@Ing: You must have missed the &quot;from my read...@Ing: You must have missed the &quot;from my reading&quot; part of the paragraph you quoted. I also fail to understand how the relatively mild assertion from my paragraph amounts to claiming to be an expert.<br /><br />And, once again, a liberal just can&#39;t get through even a short response without name-calling. There&#39;s such a great propensity toward the assumption that your own opinion is the only one that can possibly be sensible, and that anyone who disagrees with you is simply deserving of scorn, that you just can&#39;t help yourself.<br /><br />I am accused of &quot;whopping over-generalization&quot; (in another thread) when I state that it is nearly impossible to argue with a liberal without becoming the target of vileness and name-calling, yet you demonstrate it over and over again with virtually every post.<br /><br />And the truly *fascinating* thing about your reply, in particular, is that you don&#39;t even state that my opinion is wrong, much less attempt to refute it. The only point of your entire post was the name-calling bit.Neutronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91630875505487415102010-02-08T09:18:58.810-06:002010-02-08T09:18:58.810-06:00&quot;
One thing I *am* pretty well convinced of f...&quot;<br />One thing I *am* pretty well convinced of from my reading is that spending trillions on carbon sequestration and other such schemes is unlikely to have anywhere near the necessary effect.&quot;<br /><br />I HAVEN&#39;T DONE THE RESEARCH BUT I AM AN EXPERT.<br /><br />You base that on what if not science? Magic 8 ball? Since I&#39;m going to be accused of name calling anyway I&#39;m just going to come out and say that is unbelievably stupid.Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50579464409675009632010-02-08T08:48:28.804-06:002010-02-08T08:48:28.804-06:00Neutron:
Actually, I don&#39;t see that I&#39;ve ...Neutron:<br /><br /><i>Actually, I don&#39;t see that I&#39;ve claimed that anywhere.</i><br /><br />What I was referring to is obviously this: <i>I rather suspect that THEY would be blaming human activity even if there was incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.</i> Have you considered that leftists might not be blaming humans for something because they are masochist, but because humans are actually to blame for it?<br /><br /><i>But since you brought it up, I do have to say that, from my perspective as a conservative, that&#39;s EXACTLY THE WAY IT LOOKS at least some of the time. And it wouldn&#39;t surprise me if conservatives look that way to you, as well.</i><br /><br />Read this:<br />http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Psychological_projection<br /><br />Sorry, you are the crazy one here, not me.<br /><br /><i>But the purpose of my participation here is not to debate liberal vs. conservative; I&#39;ve tried doing that in the past, and despite my best efforts to keep the discussion reasoned and logical, it too frequently devolves into harsh invective and name-calling from the liberal side;</i><br /><br />If your behaviour here is any indication, so-called invectives thrown at you are probably retaliation in kind. But maybe you do not even notice your own offensiveness, starting with your very first post.<br /><br /><i>As I said, I have not formed a scientifically-motivated opinion of my own on this topic.</i><br /><br />&quot;I am too lazy to research myself, so I will just assume that what people I do not like are saying is wrong.&quot;<br /><br /><i>What I *do* know for a scientific fact is that the Earth goes through large temperature swings even absent human activity. I&#39;m simply suggesting that the best strategy may be to learn to live with temperature swings. You are free to label that &quot;inanity&quot; if you desire, but like it or not, the Earth will someday be warmer than it is now, even without AGW, and folks in the future are then going to have to decide what to do about the coastal cities.<br /></i><br /><br />&quot;Hey, you will get a cold in a few months at the latest anyway, so I&#39;ll just sneeze in your face now. And while I&#39;m at it, you are going to die in a few decades no matter what I do, so why should I not bash your skull in now and be done with it?&quot;<br /><br />Maybe you are right, in a way: inanity is too weak a word for what you consider the best strategy.Mintmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49446505233816917292010-02-08T00:01:30.707-06:002010-02-08T00:01:30.707-06:00@Mintman: &quot;But what you are claiming is that...@Mintman: &quot;But what you are claiming is that leftist would take certain political positions out of pure masochism, or maybe a desire to hurt their own country. Ask yourself: Is that really a sensible assumption?&quot;<br /><br />Actually, I don&#39;t see that I&#39;ve claimed that anywhere. But since you brought it up, I do have to say that, from my perspective as a conservative, that&#39;s EXACTLY THE WAY IT LOOKS at least some of the time. And it wouldn&#39;t surprise me if conservatives look that way to you, as well.<br /><br />But the purpose of my participation here is not to debate liberal vs. conservative; I&#39;ve tried doing that in the past, and despite my best efforts to keep the discussion reasoned and logical, it too frequently devolves into harsh invective and name-calling from the liberal side; so I seldom do it any more. I only state my own proclivity so that you will be aware of my biases.<br /><br />&quot;... as long as you grant that AGW does happen ...&quot;<br /><br />I am not yet willing to concede that. As I said, I have not formed a scientifically-motivated opinion of my own on this topic. What I *do* know for a scientific fact is that the Earth goes through large temperature swings even absent human activity. I&#39;m simply suggesting that the best strategy may be to learn to live with temperature swings.<br /><br />You are free to label that &quot;inanity&quot; if you desire, but like it or not, the Earth will someday be warmer than it is now, even without AGW, and folks in the future are then going to have to decide what to do about the coastal cities.<br /><br />One thing I *am* pretty well convinced of from my reading is that spending trillions on carbon sequestration and other such schemes is unlikely to have anywhere near the necessary effect.Neutronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52932334436948949352010-02-07T13:55:41.498-06:002010-02-07T13:55:41.498-06:00Neutron:
I often find that a good prelude to dist...Neutron:<br /><br /><i>I often find that a good prelude to distinguishing right from wrong is to distinguish right from *left*. That&#39;s not to say that right is always right, if you catch my meaning, but it does provide some basis for sorting out the biases of what you&#39;re reading.</i><br /><br />Well, the funny thing is that I find it very hard to grasp the motivation conservatives see behind their leftist opponents. Now I, as a leftist, can assume that the right will contort facts out of an interest in defending material interests, i.e. they want to keep privileges over minorities, or (with relevance to AGW here) keep driving gas-guzzling status symbols even though it is inconsiderate to do so. In some cases, I can deduce ideological blindness, especially knowing from historical experience how powerful religion is.<br /><br />Now both of these points I will grant for my side of the political spectrum. The first in the case of unions defending unrealistically high wages for a select group, the second for some commie who believes that a command economy would work but it was never <i>really</i> tried.<br /><br />But what you are claiming is that leftist would take certain political positions out of pure masochism, or maybe a desire to hurt their own country. Ask yourself: Is that really a sensible assumption? Is that, realistically, how large numbers of human beings can be assumed to function?<br /><br /><i>That&#39;s not the point; the point is the ability to feed an ever-expanding human population. You can relocate the people to almost anywhere, if you *really* have to, in the face of coastal flooding, but when you have to feed them, you need climate and land.</i><br /><br />Well, as long as you grant that AGW does happen and are only pondering whether we ought to do something about it we are already one step out of Gagaland. That being said, it pains me that you are apparently unaware of the inanity of what you just wrote. &quot;Hey, shifting to sunpower and public transport and saving energy is such an annoyance, can&#39;t we just relocate a few hundred million people and have them lose their livelihood for my convenience?&quot;Mintmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9469823448725332010-02-07T09:32:36.796-06:002010-02-07T09:32:36.796-06:00&quot;And that&#39;s precisely why I specifically ...&quot;And that&#39;s precisely why I specifically labelled it as unscientific. I often find that a good prelude to distinguishing right from wrong is to distinguish right from *left*. That&#39;s not to say that right is always right, if you catch my meaning, but it does provide some basis for sorting out the biases of what you&#39;re reading.&quot;<br /><br />Skepticism: You&#39;re doing it wrong<br /><br />You know if you keep politicizing everything, even things that aren&#39;t political you shouldn&#39;t be surprised when people insult you, because that is mind numbingly stupid.Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.com